You also cannot demonstrate (as described above) that this was a random or accidental mutation and not the result of directed guidance from a dynamic and responsive genome to changes in environmental conditions.

Not in this particular instance. There's a lot of evidence accumulating that environmental factors can regulate, and in some cases alter the expression of genes. Since we don't know whether these effects can be passed on to future generations, we can't say for sure. Classic Lamarckism is a simplistic and obsolete notion about how genetic regulation and expression works and is inadequate in modern biological thinking but the ability of environmental factors to not only influence gene expression, but to pass these changes on to future generations cannot be ignored. We simply don't know enough yet about reverse transcription, retrogenes, retropseudogenes, retrosequences and retrotransposons to say that acquired characteristics can never be inherited.

We simply don't know enough yet about reverse transcription, retrogenes, retropseudogenes, retrosequences and retrotransposons to say that acquired characteristics can never be inherited.

No, we can't say that. However, at present the only evidence that they can is some extremely controversial work from Ted Steele and colleagues in the only system in the body that undergoes significant genetic rearrangement during development.

at present the only evidence that they can is some extremely controversial work from Ted Steele and colleagues in the only system in the body that undergoes significant genetic rearrangement during development.

Try running these terms (see above) through PubMed and you'll find dozens of papers describing research in this area. While none have reached the point where they can declare that acquired characteristics can be incorporated into the genome and passed on to future generations, clearly this possibility is under intense scrutiny. Ted Steele does not represent this body of work and the controversies surrounding him should not be used to discredit it.

Slightly off topic, but Mr. Wagner opened the door by providing links to his updated website (thanks!). When a scientist offers a suspect theory, it is often helpful to look at his other publications for consistency in reasoning and here we have some examples of Mr. Wagner's logic (very consistent by the way):On guns:

Quote

But a gun is nothing more than a tool and if properly used, causes no harm. It is no different from an ax, or a brick, or a can of gasoline...Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people with fuel oil and fertilizer. Should they be banned?

So guns are just like axes, bricks and gasoline? Why didn't anyone tell me!On recycling:

Quote

What about aluminum cans and glass? We have enough of this stuff to last for centuries. Just bury it and forget it. You say it doesn't decompose or degrade? So what? Neither does rock! The earth is covered with a quadrazillion tons of broken rock just lying around forever. Not hurting anyone. So what if a few glass bottles and cans are added to the pile.

Cans and bottles are just like rocks... That's rich! Oh, and cells are like computers! Too funny!On exercise:

Quote

In fact, exercise could very well kill you. There is no evidence that exercise of any kind can decrease mortality and allow you to live longer. In fact, if you suffer from arteriosclerosis, cardio- vascular disease or hypertension, strenuous exercise could well prove fatal.

Has someone notified the New England Journal of Medicine?

The overriding pattern that emerges in Mr. Wagner's logic is clearly the misuse of simile. He has a clever analogy for everything! Mr. Wagner sees the world in similes taken literally to a ridiculous extent.I applaud your courage Mr. Wagner. You express yourself well in writing and in great volume. By publishing this website, you have provided anyone with the inclination a window into your irrational thought processes and your ability to make analogous connections where none exist! You are welcome to them, Mr. Wagner. Just don't pollute my kid's mind with your logic.